Friday, April 30, 2010

Sexy Theories and Theorists?

By far the sexiest theory I can think of is Cognitive Dissonance Theory. This theory basically states that individuals strive to have their behavior and their attitudes link up. However, when a person's behavior is not consistent with their attitude, they will begin to feel psychological arousal in a not so good way :/. Instead of having dissonance the individual will change their attitude so that they feel as if they are remaining consistent (Festinger 1957).  I think this theory is sexy because it can encompasses so many things that we, as individuals, do on a daily basis. People do things that go against their attitudes to conform, to be polite at social events, to seem easily pleased on a first date, and in doing so they begin to alter their attitudes. AMAZING.
Another sexy theory is Terror Management Theory. What this basically states is that people cope with the fear of death by creating worldviews the help boost and preserve their self esteem (Greenberg et al. 1997).. Basically, it's sexy because it explains the need for faith. People have never really been keen to death, but in order to make death less "doom-y," religion was incorporated. Heaven, the place where dead people go to live eternal awesomeness. All that is explained through this theory... love it.  
Affective Forcasting! Just became one of my top 5 sexiest because I got to use it as a joke while studying for my make-up test to boost my communal friend Stef's moral in a not-so-bueno time. This theory basically says that although people believe they will be able to predict how they will feel following a negative event or a positive event in their life, they usually overestimate the time that it will take them to get back to normal (Gilbert et al. 1998). Stef's temporary cripple-ass may still be walking like a baby dinosaur with her retro racing walker in two months, but the good news is her psychological coping mechanism will kick in and help cushion the blow from the accident! YAY! 
Distraction-conflict theory is also mighty sexy in my opinion because it just makes sense. Recently as crunch time has fallen upon us, I have been a victim of this said distraction, so to have a theory to justify my actions that night makes it all better. Distraction-conflict theory basically says that when other people are around who are distracting or creating attentional conflict social facilitation will kick in (Baron 1986). Social facilitation is basically the idea that the presence of others makes easy tasks easier and hard tasks harder (Zajonc 1965). Last Wednesday I was up working on my book project in the majestic halls of Olin with a friend who I'll call Bagel. Bagel and I were knocking the projects outta-the-park when dear old drunken  Cupcake walked in attempted to help us complete our projects while completely intoxicated. Bad Idea, needless to say my project completion was delayed at least an hour, when I finally made the executive decision to kick her out. She was distracting.... and because I have not completed a book project at SU I was performing poorly already... kicking her out was necessary.
I think that the triangular theory of love is pretty sexy just because "love" is so typically defined as being undefinable and this theory provides subtypes and all kinds of sexy magic. This theory says that there are three basic components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. When you mix and match those three things pairing them up in every which way possible you can get 8 possible love outcomes: Romantic love, Liking, Companionate Love, Empty Love, Fatuous Love, Infatuation, Consummate Love, and Non-Love (Sternberg 1986). 


Top 5 Sexy Social Psychologists:
1. Norman Triplett. I think it's pretty sexy that he was the founder of my favorite class this semester. Kudos to you, Norm. His first study was also pretty awesome seeing as how he absolutely nothing to research or start from. 
2. Leon Festinger. As I made clear up top, I'm hot for cognitive dissonance theory. He rocked my world a few time this semester. First with social comparison theory, then cognitive dissonance.... damn. 
3. Phil Zimbardo. If this was a Sexiness contest based solely on looks, he would of been at the top stop. The way he just oozes cheese and tool bag really get my gears-a-turnin', but that prison study got him on this list today. It was awesome, even though horribly unethical. lol
4. Robert Merton. That self-fulfilling prophecy really rocked my socks off if you know what I mean. 
5. Gordon Allport. Well, my blog is named after him. He was thinking ahead way back in the thirty's about apply psychology to social constructs. I think that makes him a BAMF.  

Monday, April 19, 2010

Exchange Vs. Communal Relationships

So exchange and communal relationships. Margaret Clark found that there were two different kinds of relationships, exchange and communal. Exchange relationships are characterized by an immediate reciprocation of benefits. That is we "exchange" our benefits evenly, for example, if someone was to do something for you, you would be expected to do something equivalent to that action in return. These relationships are more likely to be between strangers and work friends. Communal relationships are characterized by a partner who responds to another's needs or well-being over a prolonged amount of time without the necessity of repayment. This is more easily said to be a altruistic relationship, in which either partner does not do something with the idea of repayment in mind. These relationships occur between friends, family, and romantic partners (Clark & Mills, 1993).
Soooo today during class, Dr. G talked about the problem with people struggling for one relationship while someone is constantly keeping them in the other.  Dr. G mentioned this friend she had in grad school who tried to pay back 14 cents for some food that Dr. G bought for her and I looked directly at Stef! Ever since the bonding experience that was "Social Psychology Exam 2," there has been an established friendship (probably before that, but it's needed here for effect). Now the question lies in which of the two relationships reflected above we fit into.
See over the days of studying and that last few hours before the exam, energy drinks, candy, soda, food, and other necessities were shared. I was under the impression that this was communal... we would simply part ways after the exam and these items that led to our success would be lost in the proverbial woodwork. However, Stef constantly feels that she needs to repay some of these kind actions and well, I'm sick of it :). How can our friendship grow and prepare for this looming "Social Psychology FINAL," if she insists upon repaying me for every damn energy drink? The answer is... WE CAN'T. 
So Stef if you're reading this... QUIT. haha... Those items were shared resources for passing this class and I was happy to provide some of them. Lets take this shit to the next level... the communal one. :P

Clark, M.S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549-557.

Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Deindividuation

This week I wanted to talk a little about deindividuation. Deindividuation is best described as getting lost in the crowd. You basically become a part of the crowd and lose your own sense of identity. It can also lead to one's normal constraints against deviant or morally wrong behavior to be reduced. In simpler terms, you are more likely to do bad things that you normally wouldn't because you do not believe that you can be identified (Diener et al., 1976; Festinger et al., 1952). It is also important to consider the two different types of cues that are involved in deindividuation: attentional cues and accountability cues
Accountability cues refer to a person's ability to be identified and therefore, accountable for their actions. If accountability is low, a person feels that they can behave however they want because they "can't" get caught (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers 1982,1983).
Attentional cues focus a persons attention outwards from the self. This leads to a decrease in self-awareness, which then allows the person to focus more on the situation at hand and to think less of the long-term consequences of their behavior (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers 1982,1983).
Deindividuation happens a lot at many of the spring break locals all over the world. People literally lose control of their identity and go nuts, which is the point... what happens in Padre, stays in Padre. The spring break my junior year of high school was a particularly crazy event. My best friend from McAllen had never drank in her life, was a virgin, and thought pot was gross. We got the the beach and the first day was mayhem, their were drunk people in swarms around you and my best friend was overwhelmed and felt left out. Finally, with a little peer pressure, she had her first drink... after that it was balls out for her. She went nuts, she slept with her boyfriend (sober), got wasted every night for a week, and by the end of the week, she had tried pot. On monday the pictures began to surface on Facebook, and her face said it all... She was mortified. Her identity had returned and proof of her deindividuation was all over the internet. Needless to say, that was one of the best spring breaks ever! 

Diener, E., Fraser, S.C., Beaman, A.L., & Kelem, R.T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1983). Deindividuation in aggression. In R.G. Geen & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews: Vol. 2. Issues in research (pp. 155-171). New York: Academic Press.